This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This subject is featured in the Outline of Islam, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.

This article has been reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.Comments: "quite impressed"; "looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three"; "clinical and straightforward, but not boring"; "where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well." Please examine the findings.For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:

The History section still needs to be shifted a bit more in the direction of religious history away from political history. It also needs to be integrated better internally; some sections do not flow properly

Article reviews have pointed out the citations. Primary sources alone are discouraged. And many books cited here only have title and author.

The "Islam Topics" section at the bottom of the page seems to have a code glitch and is not displaying properly.

Add more to the history, culture, science, and Mathematics section(s) and what Muslims contributed to Europe.

The relationship of Islam and politics should be discussed in a section devoted for it. The section should cover the fact that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law), the fact the religion has been used as a tool for political profit and warfare (for ages), the fact that the suggested mode of government leadership was to "choose from the best among yourselves" (no kings), the fact that a fatwa as known today is not what is defined by sharia law (baseless political tool), and many other issues.

I noticed a lot of inconsistent spellings of "Quran" on this page, and decided to make the article uniform. Based on Quran, the discussion of said article's name in its archives, and not finding anything in the archives of this page, I have settled on "Quran" rather than the variants "Qur'an" or "Koran." Of course "Qu'ran" is an obvious typo. If a consensus is reached to instead change the spelling back to "Qu'ran" for whatever reason, despite the acceptance of the spelling "Quran," I'm alright with that. Sennsationalist (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

For some reason I can't edit the two "Qur'an" instances out of the lede. Otherwise I've cleaned it up and unified the spellings. If no one else gets to it, I'll probably remember to do it when I get on a better internet connection. Sennsationalist (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted lead? Metaphysicswar said,"Standardized with other major religions articles like Christianity & Hinduism. Second lead should be more facts based rather than cramming it with details that can possibly go on forever."

What do you guys think about the metaphysicswar lead? To me, it looks fine.

I've reverted an earliest revert of Metaphysicswar's lead because it was made without explanation. Now is the first time I looked into the changes more closely. I haven't tracked down all the changes, but the ones I see are not an improvement. They include, for example, a false statement that Islam is "articulated by the Quran", period. They also include this word salad: "The Quran, a religious text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and, for the vast majority of adherents, by the teachings [...]". So, I support Sodicadl's reset to status quo ante, and we can consider specific changes individually. Eperoton (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the issue you mentioned in the above lead. Let me know if there are other problems that you can see that needs to be fixed.001blondjamie (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence is also word salad and should probably be deleted. The statement that Islam is mostly found in the Muslim world is too tautological to serve as a good excuse for the hyperlink. Otherwise, from what I can see at the moment, I don't really have a preference between the two versions. Eperoton (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed again according to your recent concerns, let me know if you see other problems. 001blondjamie (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That second sentence is still weird... "found most notably in Greater Middle East and some of its surrounding areas." Sounds like you are referring to some elusive leopard that is only found in certain habitats lolz. I agree with Eperton, it's best to just delete it. It's not adding anything insightful anyway. cӨde1+6TP 15:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this format was copied from the first line of Hinduism article which says,"Hinduism is a religion, or a way of life, found most notably in India and Nepal." 001blondjamie (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesnt really matter where its copied from, we are discussing this page, and it should be subtracted because of the multiple reasons listed by multiple editors. cӨde1+6TP 21:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The only differences I can notice are not improvements. The introductory statement is important and it being that Islam is found most notably in the Greater Middle East is not the most notable thing about Islam. Never mind that the Greater Middle East probably does not even include most Muslims, such as in India, Bangladesh and Indonesia. There was a layout change, but I am not sure the demographics should be split to be in the first para of the lead and then again in the fourth para of the lead. With these faults to consider, I was wondering what are the advantages claimed by this edit and it said that this lead is “more facts based rather than cramming it with details that can possibly go on forever”. How is cramming it with details being unfactual or how does being fact based prevent you from going on forever? Nevermind that nothing was changed in the lead’s factual-ness and the length is still the same. Sodicadl (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So I fixed the -found most notably- issue according to your recommendation. I think the rest is formatted according to the main Christianity article which says,"Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It is the world's largest religion, with over 2.4 billion followers, or 32% of the global population, known as Christians. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity whose coming as the Messiah (the Christ) was prophesied in the Old Testament." Which looks pretty good. 001blondjamie (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Still not sure what advantage this brings. That the Christianity article begins a certain way is not a good enough reason. Sodicadl (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

and i still dont think you "fixed" the issue with the second sentence. The recommendation by editors was that it be deleted/subtracted. You just reworded it. cӨde1+6TP 12:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is beginning to look just like the current lead. The differences I notice are that "Muslims believe God is one,...and that the purpose of existence" sentence was shifted to being after Muslims believing their religion was revealed before to other prophets when the sentence about Muslims believing God is one, etc is more fundamental and should come earlier. The other difference is the demographics information is split for the beginning and end. You may have to say what differences this edit has and why they are better instead of simply, "to me, it looks fine". Sodicadl (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

We are not following MOS:BEGIN, so according to it the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list. I will explain to you how we are currently breaking almost all the major points of the MOS:BEGIN. Right now the current hosted opening paragraph just sticks with in short Quran, GOD, Sunnah, Hadith, Muhammad, Muslims, GOD, GOD, GOD which is in totality too specific. Second we are not giving the location and time of when Islam started and where it is located in our world right now. Third we have not set the circumstances or facts that surround Islam as a topic. Fourth we have not establish the boundaries of the topic with information like demographics, how Islam is related to other Abrahamic religions and generally different with other primordial faiths. Updated version above fixes most of these issues. 001blondjamie (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like nobody is interested in discussing this topic any further. I will make the changes if nobody replies back soon. 001blondjamie (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see some of your points. I would agree to keeping your second sentence in the lead as the second sentence since it goes some way towards the Manuel of Style. However, the third sentence about "complete and universal version" is not so much about "establish[ing] the boundaries of the topic". How Islam is "generally different with other faiths" is better done with the "Muslims consider the Quran,..." sentence and that would not exactly work as the third sentence. Sodicadl (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, per suggestion by the Manuel of Style, I would suggest changes to the lead sentence. It became unnecessarily bulky to supposedly incorporate quranists. I suggest the second part be simplified to "and by the teachings of Muhammad" since quranists would likely not disagree with because the reliability of the sources is criticized not the teachings themselves. A sentence about hadith can be added later after the sentence about the Quran later on like "The normative example of Muhammad is called the sunnah and is composed of accounts called hadith." The Manuel recommends that the lead sentence not be "too specific", so I suggest moving "Abrahamic monotheistic" to the later sentence as "Islam is an AbrahamicMonotheistic religion that upholds that God is one and incomparable[33] and that the purpose of existence is to worship God." Sodicadl (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you please update the above lead according to all of your recommendations so I can update the live version with it. Or you can incorporate the second sentence into the live version with your recommendations so we can call it a day. Let me know either way. Thank you 001blondjamie (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I updated the live version with your second sentence. Sodicadl (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

^Lippman, Thomas W. (2008-04-07). "No God But God". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2013-09-24. Islam is the youngest, the fastest growing, and in many ways the least complicated of the world's great monotheistic faiths. It is a unique religion based on its own holy book, but it is also a direct descendant of Judaism and Christianity, incorporating some of the teachings of those religions—modifying some and rejecting others.

Many of the citations on this page are superfluous. For example, the content about Sunnis being 75-90% of Muslims cites 15 sources. WP:OVERCITE recommends using a few good citations over quantity. Right now, those fifteen are there as artifacts of past edit wars. Most of them are not anything to do with demographics but mention numbers in passing and so one may not just stop at fifteen and could continue ad nauseam. I suggest keeping the source from the Pew Research center since it is the most reliable there on demographics and the one by the CIA factbook since that is also credible on demographics and it cites the lower end of 75%. Sodicadl (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced by that essay. Multiple citations can be useful when they reflect an effort to review a range of sources and establish due weight for competing claims, and this seems to be an instance of this. The citations are arranged according to decreasing percentages: 90, 90, 87-90, 85-90, 85-90, 85, 85, 85, 85, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80, >75. I think we can weed out the weaker sources, but I wouldn't discard strong sources which, taken together, indicate that the estimate of 75% does not represent a commonly held view. Eperoton (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

So which ones to keep? I suggest keeping the Pew center, Britannica, the world factbook and the Berkley center. Sodicadl (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a similar assessment, except for Britannica, which in its current incarnation seems to be a fairly weak and possibly outdated source. I would go with Pew, Oxford Bibliographies, Berkley center, and World Factbook. Eperoton (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The article currently mentions the five pillars (Faith, daily prayers, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage) as the Muslim practices/actions. As it is mentioned in the article itself, these are five basic acts in Islam, but not all. According to Nigosian, these five pillars are the 'minimum standards'. There are at least two other Muslim practices, a) moral behavior and b) social service. Moral behavior/practice is a very broad topic in Islam. We have articles on them: Morality in Islam and Social welfare in Islam. This article, in fact, lacks many other essential topics; hence, is not complete. I suggest, renaming the 'Five pillars' section to 'Practice' or 'Actions', and then include Five pillars and Moral behavior as sub topics. Any better idea to arrange them? -AsceticRosé 04:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple of different points. First, the five pillars and six articles of faith we currently list here are Sunni classifications. RSs devote more space to Sunni than to Shia traditions, and so should we, but we shouldn't present these classifications as normative. The five pillars belong to the category of ibadat, so it would be more appropriate to title this section something like "Acts of worship", and add a subsection on Shia Islam, briefly noting alternative classifications.

I'm not sure how to incorporate teachings on moral behavior and social service. From a traditional perspective, they belong under mu'amalat. In fact, from that perspective, both ibadat and mu'amalat should be subsections of "Law and jurisprudence", but that's not how standard modern textbooks present this material. Perhaps we need to review a few of them for guidance. I'm frankly concerned about relying too much on Nigosian's book. I'm not familiar with it, but I see that Islamic ethics#Moral commandments presents moral teachings of Islam in the highly idiosyncratic formulation of "ten commandments" based on this book, which is a big WP:UNDUE violation. Eperoton (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nigosian in his book has just made a loose personal observation about the resemblance between the 17:22-37 verses of the Quran and the Ten Commandments. Nor has he presented it as the overall moral teachings of Islam. He was, in fact, using the 17:22-37 verses as an example when referring to moral teaching. It is actually the wiki editor who shaped it into that way in Islamic ethics#Moral commandments. Apart from this, Nigosian's book is a good example for us because of its neat and clean and good arrangements of topics.

Coming to the main point, the moral topic is not just the teaching in Islam; rather, they are both regarded and done as practice. For example, The Quran: An Encyclopedia says: 'to forgive and to seek forgiveness must be an essential Muslim practice' (214). Again, 'Since they [moral behaviou] are voluntary actions, they fall into the category of supererogatory acts of worship' (140). Referring to moral behavior, Juan E. Campo's Encyclopedia of Islam says: 'Submission and performing good deeds, the Quran teaches, are done because they are prescribed by God, they reciprocate God for the blessings he provides, and they are rewarded… . Justice, respecting elders, maintaining honesty these are not just teachings; rather they are practiced in everyday life.

Ibadat should not ethically come under "Law and jurisprudence", because if you think in that way, then there will be nothing left to discuss separately, not even the articles of faith and holydays, as Sharia has various rulings on almost everything.

As for arrangement, Malcolm Clark's Islam For Dummies discusses a) five pillars of worship, b) other religious rituals and customs, and c) Muslim ethics/morality under the same Part III section. S. A. Nigosian discusses a) Five Pillars and b) Moral and Social Behavior in the same chapter named Faith and Actions. In Matt Stefon's Islamic Beliefs and Practices, there is a chapter Community and Society under which he has discussed topics like social welfare, community figures, marriage etc. Under Piety and Ritual in Islamic Life chapter, he has topics like a) Five Pillars of Islam, b) Holy Days, c) Life and Death. Under the Milestones in Life heading, Nigosian presents topics like Birth, Marriage, Death. From this, one thing is clear that Marriage topic belongs more to social life than to "Law and jurisprudence" category.

From the above scenario, we can draw a simple outline. There should be a separate section named something like Family and Society which will discuss a) Family life b) Life and Death, c) Marriage d) Social service. Under Practices section, there will be a) Five Pillars of Worship, and b) Moral Behavior.

I think the main can be named "Practices" rather than "Acts of worship" because 1) we are including the sub-section 'Five Pillars of Worship' 2) discussing Moral Behavior fits more under "Practices" than "Acts of worship". What do you think? -AsceticRosé 15:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that overview. You've convinced me that a legalistic perspective would not reflect textbook treatments of the subject. However, I still don't see a rationale for combining the five pillars and moral behavior under one section. The term "practices", which is not found in the classifications above, seems to be too broad, and, like jurisprudence, could potentially include anything. Based on what you've presented, it seems that "Five pillars" and "Ethics/morality" should be separate top-level sections. "Five pillars" could be part of a "Rituals" section, as in Stefon, or there could be a separate section on "Family life". How community and society would fit into this really depends on the nature of content. Eperoton (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You are probably right that 'Practice' may be too broad a term, and has the potentiality to include many things. I see that in Christianity article, the term 'Worship' has been used, and under this, various rites/acts of worship have been discussed. 'Five pillars' should not be the name of the main section for two strong reasons: 1) In this way, we will limit the acts of worship of Islam to these five, whereas there are many other acts of worship like Sadaqah (voluntary charity), reciting Quran, zikir and the like. 2) No ideal book, which comprehensibly deals with the religious practices of Islam, makes Five pillars the main section simply because it does not mirror the reality. Thus, we can choose between a) Acts of worship; b) Religious practice; or simply c) Worship. I assume that it is almost impossible to find a terminology which will be 100% satisfactory to all, and which will be a true equivalent for the Arabic terminology 'Ibadat' (thus, Ibadat alone is the proper word to refer to the Islamic acts of worship).

I see some rationale to discuss moral behavior with other acts of worship. 1) Moral behavior has a practical/action side. They are not just teachings in Islam. 2) One better argument is that there are two categories of worship: involuntary and voluntary. The so called five pillars are involuntary and mandatory. That's why they are so highlighted. But what about the voluntary ones? According to The Qur'an: An Encyclopedia, "Since they [moral qualities] are voluntary actions, they fall into the category of supererogatory acts of worship. It is in this area of worship that man is brought near to God." Here, moral qualities have been described as worship. 3) Just as five pillars are commanded in Quran and Hadith, so are the observance of good deeds like forgiveness, justice, Kindness, charity, respecting the elders and so. Just as the five pillars are practiced in everyday life, so are the good moral behaviors. And I have shown above that moral behavior has been discussed in the same chapters along with the five pillars in Nigosian's and Malcolm Clark's books. 4) One point I should have clarified earlier. I want to present Moral behavior as a practice, not as a teaching here, because besides being teachings, these are practiced in everyday life. That's why, Malcolm Clark has discussed a) the five pillars, b) other religious rituals, and c) Muslim ethics in everyday life in the same Part III. The section I've prepared will look something like this:

Islamic tradition holds that moral qualities and good actions elevate the status of a man before God. Faith is considered incomplete without having sense of morality. Thus, Muslims go beyond the minimum limit of worship, namely the five pillars, and practice the body of moral teachings prescribed in the Islamic scriptures. The Quran, which Muslims believe to be the verbatim word of God, and the Sunnah, which is the teachings, deeds and sayings, silent permissions (or disapprovals) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, serves as the primary sources of moral teachings in Islam. The typical Islamic teaching on morality is that imposing a penalty on an offender in proportion to their offense is permissible and just; but forgiving the offender is better. To go one step further by offering a favor to the offender is regarded the highest excellence. Charity to the poor and the helpless is the most highlighted and most insisted virtue in the Quran. As a virtue, forgiveness is much celebrated in Islam, and is regarded as an important Muslim practice, inspired by both the Quran and the Sunnah. Since the pursuance of moral qualities are more of a voluntary nature, their observance falls into the category of superior worshipping, and is seen as the key to attaining the nearness of God.

You are right, and as I told earlier, that there should be a separate section on family life. But it should be something like Family and Society. That's what a standard book does. Marriage is a social event, for example. Two families from one/more society join together. In the ceremony, social people are invited. Even birth and death are social events. In the funeral ceremony, people from society attend. We all know these.

Having a separate section on "Ethics/morality" will be too ambitious a task, I believe. And I do not see enough editors/efforts to bring it to a good end.

Actually, we have to start. Everything can't be shaped a priori. The course of time will shape them. -AsceticRosé 16:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I can see changing "Five Pillars" to "Acts of Worship" or "Worship". To say five pillars might restrict the scope a little. For example, User:AsceticRose mentioned the observance of good deeds like "charity" be mentioned. Charity such as sadaqah needs mentioning and has some mention in the "Alms-giving" subsection, but it would already be out of scope since the section is named "five pillars" and sadaqah, unlike zakat, is not part of the five pillars. Sodicadl (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

AsceticRose Yes, that article describes a philosophical theory that links moral behavior to worship, but your text doesn't seem to do justice to the logic sketched out there (also, supererogatory doesn't mean superior). I would suggest either finding a more straightfoward account of this connection or spelling out the philosophical arguments more carefully. Why don't you want to make a separate section on ethics/morality with a few general statements and links to the two articles where these topics are discussed in depth? This article should in part serve as a guide to the more detailed articles. It would even be standard practice to adapt the lead of the main article here. The lead in Islamic ethics isn't good enough for that purpose, but the lead in Morality in Islam does a reasonable job of summarizing that article. Eperoton (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Sodicadl, I also prefer "Acts of Worship" (at least for now). And yes, Sadaqah should be a separate section. When done, the little mentioning of it in "Alms-giving" subsection will be taken out.

@Eperoton, you have a nice question as to why I don't want a separate section on ethics/morality. Part of it has already been answered. Actually, you will find that collecting "a few general statements" from any ethics/philosophical article will do a very poor job no matter how simplified a version you want to make. Another reason is that so far as I have understood Islam by practicing it and by reading canonical and standard books, observing proper moral behavior falls almost into the category of Ibadat, a good clue of it you have already found in the above encyclopedia. In Islam, moral behavior is not something for teaching purpose only, rather inextricable from everyday practice.

You have a good suggestion to 'either finding a more straightforward account' or 'spelling out the philosophical arguments'. Working for a stretch on these topics, I'm at a logjam. If you can provide me with clues, I can work on it. Or, this can be done gradually. And you are right about 'supererogatory'. I've changed it. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 05:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@AsceticRose: I'd be glad to help summarizing sources. Right now I don't have much to work with in the direction that you propose. I'm familiar with several treatments of ibadat: in Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed (that article is rather outdated), the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, the Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History, and Hallaq's Sharī'a: Theory, Practice, Transformations. I don't recall seeing a discussion of moral behavior as such as a form of ibadat/worship in either of these sources. OEoIW notes broader implications of ibadat, but from a different angle:

the relationship between ʿibādāt and muʿāmalāt is not unambiguous. For instance, the connection between the performance of ritual acts of worship and muʿāmalāt can be seen in the prescriptions related to a range of religious obligations that extend beyond the five pillars of Islam such as the provisions relating to marriage, the hunting and slaughter of animals, the taking of oaths, the expiation of sin, circumambulation of the Kaʿbah during pilgrimage, and even the degree to which transactional matters are to include praise, glorification, and remembrance of God.

Perhaps the matter is treated differently in other kinds of texts -- I don't know. The philosophical perspective you pointed out is interesting and worth mentioning, whether here or in a more detailed article. I can try summarizing it, but the argument is rather subtle, and the philosophical categories it uses aren't spelled out very clearly in that article. In any case, I think placing moral behavior under ibadat/worship based on passing statements in one encyclopedic entry would be undue. If you know standard books that do so, that would be a different story. Eperoton (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I can summarize the result of the above discussion as follows:

A separate "Acts of worship" main section with some sub-sections discussing various ibadats.

A separate "Family and social life" main section.

A separate "Moral behavior" main section (currently, I’m not naming it something like Ethics and Morality because it will incorporate the moral side. If someone can incorporate ethics side, it can be renamed accordingly). -AsceticRosé 13:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was changing the title of "Five pillars" to "Acts of worship" is a more accurate reflection of the content in that section. I changed the title to "acts of worship" as it seems that there was agreement on that.

AsceticRose, I understand that the jurisprudence section can technically incorporate everything. However, of the subsections already in the jurisprudence section, why should family life be entitled to get its own section and not the other subsections?

I am still uncomfortable with an entire new section for something like "Moral behavior". I would prefer knowing more clearly what will be going into that section first. One issue with moral behavior as a separate section is that so many of the other sections already pertain to the topic of moral behavior and so much of the passage suggested above is repetitive of the article. My other issue is singling out charity and forgiveness to highlight Islamic morality is not something the sources would necessary come to consensus on and you would be giving undue weight to one way of looking at Islam. I think it would be fine for the sentences on forgiveness be incorporated to the law section, as it is relevant to crime. Sodicadl (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

About the Family life section, it was somewhat erroneous to discuss it under Law and jurisprudence. The reference books generally don't do it, rather discuss it separately as illustrated above (Matt Stefon rather discussed Law as sub-point under Community and Society chapter probably because law has value only if there exist family and society, and not vice versa). In fact, topics like Scholars, Etiquette and diet, Government should not be discussed under Law and jurisprudence. I have not seen this in the reference books I have. Generally law topics – like penal law, inheritance law, family law, transaction law – are discussed under it. Probably the present arrangement of the Law and jurisprudence section was adapted for ease of arrangement. The present Family life section is discussed from a legal point of view. In that case, 'Family law' was the appropriate title for it. Anyway, it is better to discuss it ("Family and social life") from social and ritual viewpoints because a) a community's everyday and social life is concerned more with its everyday customs, norms and social interactions than the legal aspects; b) a community is distinguished and identified more by its visible life-style than its law which is somewhat internal but important aspect.

The present Family life section has some lines related to family law which could be incorporated with the third paragraph of Law and jurisprudence section because that paragraph discusses such things. And new "Family and social life" section will have sub-sections (Birth, Marriage, Social welfare, Death) discussed from the above-mentioned viewpoints.

"Moral behavior" was initially proposed as a sub-section. Even if we make it a main section, it will not be too much because Quran and Hadith literature are rich in such discussions, and Islam was never separated from and devoid of it. I originally proposed to place it under Worship section. Eperoton proposed to make a separate Ethics and Morality section (probably with two sub-sections). One idea has just come into my mind that we can alternatively place it under "Family and social life" section. I will be glad to know what Eperoton will be thinking about it. Sodicadl, do you have any better idea about this arrangement?

I still believe that the section on morality can be reworded in a way to make it able to be included under worship section, especially if we can name the latter as Religious practice because no one can deny that following moral teaching is a Muslim practice.

The present state of the article is a partial representation of Islam. It does not discuss what the other forms of worship are besides the five pillars, what the moral doctrines are, what the social and family rites are. -AsceticRosé 16:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The point I brought up about having a family and social life section is that only taking the family subsection out of the law and jurisprudence section would seem arbitrary but then again the other sections in there like economy and government are related to society. So, I think a better way of organizing this is to have a section called "Society" which could bring out the "Etiquette and diet", "Family life", "Economy", "Government" and "Warfare" subsections from the law and jurisprudence sections and perhaps you may add your suggestions to that new section. However, another point is that your suggested subsections like "Birth" and "Death" seem way too specific for the main article of Islam.

Concerning the "moral behavior" section, I am still not very confident about it for the same reasons I mentioned before. What is going to go in there? The passage you suggested is not persuasive. It says that "following moral qualities are more of a voluntary nature" and so makes them better. That is something enough sources would disagree with; obligatory acts are also considered part of moral qualities. Sodicadl (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The arrangement of material seems to differ in the sources depending on whether they make a systematic presentation of classical religious sciences or take a sociological perspective on contemporary Islam. Incidentally, I just finished reading Women and Gender in Islam by Leila Ahmed, and she takes pains to distinguish the "ethical" perspective of contemporary popular Islam from the "technical, legalistic" perspective of the religious establishment. Here are a couple of other sources:

Section structure of John Esposito's Islam entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, which is similar to how he arranges material in Islam: The Straight Path: Origins and Early Development; God, the Qurʿān, and Prophet Muhammad; Creation of the Islamic Community; The Paths of Islam: Law and Mysticism (NB: includes the five pillars and jihad); The Muslim Community in History; Sectarianism: Sunnī and Shīʿī Islam; Modern Islam; Islamic Revivalism or “Fundamentalism.”; Roots of the Resurgence; Ideological Worldview; From the Periphery to the Center: Mainstream Revivalism; The Globalization of Jihad; Issues of Authority and Interpretation; The Struggle for Islam; Islam and the Diaspora; Assessment

Section structure of Fazlur Rahman's contributions to the Islam entry in Encyclopedia Britannica[3]: Fundamental practices and institutions of Islam (The five pillars; Sacred places and days; Shrines of Sufi saints; The mosque; Holy days); Social and ethical principles (Family life; The state; Education; Cultural diversity); Social service is also a subsection of Doctrines of the Qur'an

I like Sodicadl's proposal of putting things under a "Society" section. Multiple sources have a section like this, including the ones mentioned by AsceticRose (Muslim Daily Life in Islam for Dummies, Moral and Social Behavior in Nigosian, Community and Society in Stefon). None of them present ethics/morality under a separate top-level heading. Eperoton (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

AsceticRose, what I meant about the "Acts of worship" section was that changing the title to that from five pillars more accurately reflects the content already in that section, as I have clarified previously. I was not on the same page for a separate section for sadaqah. This is a summary article and so would not be appropriate to have one subsection for zakah and another for sadaqah.

Additionally, in the edit and on the talk page, you used the word "voluntary" for acts like sadaqah. I suppose this is a translation of Mustahabb or more colloquially "Sunnah". "Voluntary" might seem problematic. Even Fard (Compulsory) acts are voluntary, so wouldn't "optional" work better? Sodicadl (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sodicadl, I will discuss the sadaqah issue later. I'm now concentrating on our main topics.

I'm making things easy for us. We now have two issues: 1) arrangement of "Society" (or something similar) section; and 2) issue with "moral behavior" section. Let's first discuss and settle "Society" issue. Then we will move to "moral behavior" issue.

It seems both of you have taken a courageous step. I agree with you proposal. I will start the process soon. However, I have some observations. You should notice that 'Economy' and 'Jihad' sub-sections are written purely from legal point of view. So, transferring them under "Society" main section with their current texts will be a great technical mistake. Readers will be confused too. Additionally, Jihad is not generally discussed under "Society". How will you manage them? (So, my primary suggestion is that keep these two in their current position). -AsceticRosé 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think those two subsections should also go into the society section. One of the reasons is that, as mentioned before, it looks a little arbitrary to leave some in jurisprudence and give others a new section. Even in the society section, after all, it is going to be about Islam applied to everyday aspects and is bound to have a jurisprudence bent to it. You could change the angle and/or add other angles to it. That would still be better than leaving them out because something like "economy" seems pretty relevant to a section called "society".

I took a look at Morality in Islam. If that is how a potential morality section is going to be structured, then I have mixed feelings about it. In addition to my disagreements previously mentioned, that content looks likely to be contested as POV. But the content is also relevant. A hadith says that the characteristic of Islam is modesty, which would make it quite relevant but nothing in the structure of the article so far would give space for content like that. Even if this is a summary article, nothing so far links to these issues, so there is a deficiency here. Something I may let pass is perhaps a subsection called maybe “Mores” that would be preferably be in the Law and jurisprudence section, as that may help regulate it from getting too vague and into weasel words. It could ground things like saying the dress code Islam is known for is an example of its stance on modesty. It should also stick to virtues as that is what is missing, not actions, like “charity and philanthropy” as that would be repetitive of other sections already available. But, not so sure. I think we all must be agreement before going forward. Sodicadl (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sodicadl, I found your statement a little bit problematic. You're saying that transferring some to Society and keeping some under Law will be arbitrary. No, that is not arbitrary at all. Rather, transferring sections without considering their relation and content will be arbitrary. Again, you see, you yourself have proposed five sub-sections ("Etiquette and diet", "Family life", "Economy", "Government" and "Warfare") to be transferred while you yourself have left two sub-sections (Scholars and Schools of jurisprudence) under Law. So, are not your proposals contradictory?

The Economy section is taken from Islamic economic jurisprudence article, and it is better to describe it from legal point of view because economy is a overall issue mainly governed by Sharia. One thing should be clear that under Society we will discuss things that have social rites/customs like what Muslims do after the death of a Muslim or what is done at the time of Muslim marriage. Same is true to Jihad. A biggest issue is that Jihad is not described under Society. So, even if we transfer Economy under Society, I don't agree about Jihad. -AsceticRosé 15:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I was not asking for there to be no law section. I should have specified then that of those five applications of jurisprudence, I don't know why only some would get their own new section. You seem to draw the line that economy is "overall issue mainly governed by sharia" but others are "social rites/customs". How did you make that differentiation? Right now they are too nuanced for some to deserve their own section. Sodicadl (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think my previous comments contain answers to some of your questions. Actually, it is not about some or all; it is about appropriate text under appropriate title. It is not something that I or you will decide based on personal choice; rather appropriateness and reference books will decide them.

I originally proposed to make a 'Family and social life' section because 1) reference books arrange them in this way; and 2) I was not going to just cut the 'Family life' sub-section from Law and paste it into 'Family and social life' section; rather I prepared and changed the text accordingly. And I said above that Economics sub-section may be placed under Society section, but it is better to keep it under Law because it is written from legal viewpoint, and it describes a bunch of sharia rulings. And I also said that Jihad will remain under Law.

I personally have no problem to place Economics sub-section under Society section; but what is stopping me has been described above.

Probably you had a nice question 'how did you make that differentiation?' Consider the followings:

To say that To reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, Islamic economic jurisprudence encourages trade, discourages the hoarding of wealth… or Usury, which allows the rich to get richer without sharing in the risk, is forbidden in Islam is to describe the sharia rulings (and hence, a legal approach)

But to say that In a Muslim family, the birth of a child is attended with some religious ceremonies. Immediately after the birth, the words of Adhan is pronounced in the right ear of the child. In the seventh day, the aquiqa ceremony is performed in which an animal is sacrificed and its meat is distributed among the poor or The amount of money or possessions of the mahr is paid by the groom to the bride at the time of marriage for her exclusive use. is to describe social rites/customs (and hence, a social approach).

I think the distinction is clear. -AsceticRosé 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Another argument is that some topics can be discussed from both 'Legal' and 'Social' viewpoints. A good example is the topic of 'marriage'. That's why, we have two articles on this: Islamic marital jurisprudence (discussed from legal viewpoint) and Marriage in Islam (discussed from social viewpoint). On the other hand, some topics are generally discussed only from legal viewpoint (because there are not so much customs/rites associated with them). Economics/transaction falls in this category. That's why, we have only one articles on this: Islamic economic jurisprudence. Again, some topics are generally discussed from social viewpoint like social service and morality because they are basically customary. For the last two types, it is easy to understand where they should be placed. As for the first type (topics that are discussed from both social and legal viewpoints), I think there is a good way to arrange them. We can briefly discuss the sharia rulings under 'Law and jurisprudence', and we can briefly discuss the associated customs/rites under Society section. We can implement this first step so that we can understand what we should do next. -AsceticRosé 16:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Something I brought up earlier was still not addressed. This should be a summary article. If the threshold is such that "birth of a child" gets a section with the amount of detail you mentioned, then this would be a very long article (it is already 162 kb, when WP:TOOBIG recommends >100kb "almost certainly should be divided"). I don't think marriage should be in two sections. My position remains to have a section on something like "Society" and it can have subsections like "Family life". If they have details on jurisprudence, as anything in Islam (like acts of worship and rites/customs) has, that does not mean it is disqualified from being there. You mentioned that this should be decided by reference books, but from those mentioned in this thread they mostly have one section for topics concerning the community. I guess we'll have to see other editors think. Sodicadl (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

One clarification. There will not be any separate section like "birth of a child". There will be "Family life" subsection as you said. I also agree with "one section for topics". I will try to arrange them in light of our discussion.

Size is not a problem. Size depends on the quality of the article. There are far more larger articles like Andalusia (191 kb) and The Holocaust (298 kb!). -AsceticRosé 17:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think, we now can discuss Moral behavior issue. Both Eperoton and Sodicadl have presented constructive criticism and valuable suggestions which I found helpful. It is now clear that the text I previously prepared should be reformulated to be fit for this article.

Sodicadl and Eperoton are right that it should be a sub-section instead of a main section. Eperoton said 'either finding a more straightforward account' or 'spelling out the philosophical arguments'. Sodicadl asked 'what will be going into that section'. I have the similar question as to what we should put here. Actually, the fact is that both the Quran and the Hadith and other Islamic traditions contain and suggest ample moral teachings for mankind. Much emphasis has been paid for their practice. Various reference books discuss them variously. Our challenge/task is just to represent this simple fact in a simple but best possible way, and no more.

I, however, found Sodicadl's this statement It should also stick to virtues as that is what is missing, not actions, like “charity and philanthropy” erroneous because every moral virtue becomes a moral action when you practice/follow them. -AsceticRosé 15:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

My concerns were about the proposed classification of moral behavior under worship. It sounds like you have multiple RSs (Clark, Nigosian, Stefon) that discuss contemporary moral teachings under a "society" heading, so I suggest that you summarize what they say under that section here. It so happens that the sources I have at my disposal take a historical perspective or else they discuss classical religious sciences, which is something else. Eperoton (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton for reply. Recently, I too was contemplating to put it under 'Society' section to make the issue easier. Do you have any suggestion as to how it should be summarized? Is the previously prepared text good enough to be put under 'Society' section?

And you are right about your sources. Such encyclopedias generally do not help us in section arrangement. Reference books do, to some extent. Clark, Nigosian, Matt Stefon are available on Google books. -AsceticRosé 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

If the book passages you've based your summary on are available online, I can take a look and offer my opinion. Encyclopedias and books on history of Islam are an important class of sources to inform the structure of this article. The ones I have just don't happen to cover contemporary moral teachings as a coherent topic, while the introductory texts you have apparently do. Eperoton (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering MOS:BEGIN. The word God is repeated 4 times in the first paragraph in the lead which is too specific. So can we remove some of the mention of God which is repeated too many times and broadened the subject of the first paragraph in the lead. 000meow (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like nobody want to discuss this so I am going to make my changes soon. 000meow (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeating four times is not itself a problem. You did not elaborate on what you mean by broaden the subject of the first paragraph but I don't see how the edit you made helped. Sodicadl (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

By repeating four times I mean that the first paragraph is focusing too much on God. According to MOS:BEGIN crteria we need to cover whole lot of other facts in the first paragraph.

These sentences, "Islam is a Abrahamic monotheistic religion that upholds that God is one and incomparable and that the purpose of existence is to worship God. Muslims consider Muhammad to be the last prophet of God." goes into too many details about God and repeats the word God thrice which is against the instruction in MOS:BEGIN which says the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. So that is why I moved this sentence to the second paragraph. Also God is already mentioned once above in the same paragraph.

This sentence, "Muslims also believe that Islam is the original, complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus." provides the circumstances or facts that form the setting of Islam as a religion in the universal context, regional context and sets the boundaries of the topic within the many different religions of the world by claiming that Islam is a primordial faith through Adam, the first human, and within that related to Judaism (Moses) & Christianity (Jesus) which follows the instruction in MOS:BEGIN which says it should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic. So that is why I moved this sentence to the first paragraph. 000meow (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like nobody wants to discuss this further so I am making my changes. 000meow (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Only two of those mentions of the word God were directly about God, the other two were "verbatim word of God" and "last prophet of God" so that is not about "focusing too much on God" it is only a reflection of the topic, Islam, which focuses quite a bit on God.

To fulfill establishing the context in which the topic is being considered there is the statement that it is a Abrahamaic and monotheistic faith, which everyone agrees that it is. The statement about Muslims believing Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith is just another article of Muslim belief not what a neutral point of view would agree to how Islam is defined as a topic.

From what I understand of establish the boundaries of the topic it is to state the limits of the article. Your proposal does not change anything there. Sodicadl (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)